Thanks for taking part

It’s been in interesting discussion – which continues below the line. Thank you for getting involved and setting the tone of the debate, we’ve enjoyed hearing from many of you and indeed putting your questions to our writers.

We are hoping to run another similar debate this time next week on another theme from electionland: by then we’ll be just a dozen days from going to the polls ... hold on to your hats. You can let us know what sort of questions you’d like us to answer via our callout, here.

Here’s a few points from dezilo (click the link to read the full comment):

Love it or loathe it, this manifesto is at least an honest attempt (however imperfect) to puncture the sail of the erroneous belief by Corbyn, comrades and sympathisers that one is entitled to free giveaways by other individuals who are never acknowledged for their contribution to society.

This is a government in waiting that recognises the need to build a nation for everyone, where no one is a victim but active participants in the nation state.

A government committed to effecting the will of the British people on Brexit and not undermine it. These are the reasons why the Conservative and Unionist Party will form the next government with a massive majority come 8 June.

It is striking that the so-called "Brexit election" has so far contained very little actual debate about Brexit at all. There are many reasons for this: they include May's demand for a broad mandate not a detailed one, and Labour's fear of challenging on the issue for fear of being accused of remoaning. As a result, though, I increasingly think that the 2017 election can be seen as an election about the referendum rather than about Brexit terms. It's as though the election is necessary in order to bolt down the referendum vote within the parliamentary electoral system. Many pro-Europeans, like me, find this frustrating, but I think we ought to recognise that this is what is happening. The upside of all this, though, is that post-election politics will in fact be dominated by the Brexit terms - and the 2022 election (or perhaps even a 2020 or 2021 election) will be very fundamentally about the kind of relationship we want with the EU. If I am being optimistic, I think that one of the paradoxes of the Brexit vote is that Britain appears to be about to elect a Tory government that is strikingly Christian Democratic in outlook, on the European model. As we leave the EU, so we may in fact become more "European". If that's true - and I make no predictions at all - it could see the UK become a kind of EU fellow-traveller from outside the EU. This wouldn't be the worst of all outcomes for Britain.

'Does May have any intention of actually pursuing this immigration promise?'

Do you think that under-funding education and committing to lower immigration at the same time is irresponsible, and if so how irresponsible and in what ways?

Is the Labour plan of investing in education at all levels the better long-term bet for reducing immigration (as we’ll have the skilled doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. that we need locally)? Relatedly, do you think Mrs May has any intention of actually pursuing this immigration promise this time around?

I don't think there's much doubt that May means what she says about immigration. The remarkable thing is that none of the people in her own party or in the Treasury who can see the political and economic folly have managed to communicate it too her in a persuasive way. (Political hazard being that you promise something undeliverable and thereby stoke all the anger that your policy is meant to appease.)

The Mayites seem to believe that limiting immigration means the demand for workers is met by "home-grown" workers - which is good for employment, community relations and general well-being all round. But as you say, the missing element is skills - and even with the necessary funding, there is a time lag between vacancies being available and training people up to fill them.

I imagine a lot of people - left and right - would support the idea of investment in Britain's workforce, and a lot of people who object to the importing of cheap labour if it means undermining wages and conditions. But there does need to be a lot more honesty than you get from May about how you would manage the transition from an ultra-liberal globalised labour market to a more protected one without slowing down investment and job creation.

Also, I'd guess one likely consequence of a clumsy and ill-thought-through clampdown on legal migration is a rise in illegal migration.

There’s a not a great deal of time left for your questions, but you can continue to discuss the points raised in the comments after we bring things above the line to a close shortly. Stay tuned and we’ll hope to get a couple more of your questions answered, though.

Polly mentions that she likes May’s brave move to start taking some of the wealth created by house price inflation (as I do), would you go further Polly and also agree that a large hike in IHT is necessary?

And moreover would you agree with me that, in contrast to Corbyn’s proposals to increase ‘in life’ taxes, ‘end of life’ taxes are a far more sensible way to proceed as they don’t stifle young people’s aspirations, and they take the wealth from people reaching the end of their lives who don’t need it any more?

Ellie Mae O’Hagan in the Guardian made a rare ATL venture into suggesting a huge increase in Inheritance Tax. And frankly, in my view, that is the only way to begin addressing the cancer in our system that is exponential cumulative concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

Polly's headed off (I think) but I agree that IHT is a social good. It's interesting that in America there is a much more articulate tradition of arguing in favour of IHT, which is backed by, among others Bill Gates Sr and Warren Buffett. They argue that the US republic was established in order not to have an aristocracy of inherited wealth on the British model, and that abolishing IHTs creates such an aristocracy. British politicians are just scared of it, most of the time. Maybe someone should persuade Prince Charles to take this up.

I think the short answer to the first question is that the Tories are getting away with murder on uncosted manifesto partly because so much of the press is giving May a free pass but also because the incumbent governing party carries a kind of authority and credibility (justified or not) that oppositions have to work harder to earn.

It is a bit absurd but the reality is that "looking Prime Ministerial" and "being credible on the economy" tend to be functions of being the actual Prime Minister and running the economy. Rarely an opposition leader can overcome that with sheer charisma, but more often a sitting government cocks things up so badly that the alternative gains the necessary authority by default.

Now it is possible that May's (mis)handling of Brexit will put us into that space, but I don't think we are there yet.

'Why is a “fully costed manifesto” seen as being important for Labour but not the Conservatives?

Martin Kettle joins us to answer questions raised by YorkerBouncer in the comments:

Why is a “fully costed manifesto” seen as being important for Labour but not the Conservatives? And how can anyone claim whether any manifesto in this election is costed or otherwise when nobody is prepared to reveal the cost of Brexit?

The Brexit point is unanswerable in one sense. The costs and savings etc of Brexit are unknowable at this stage. That's not so much because no one is prepared to reveal the costs as that no one really knows them yet. The whole thing is one hypothetical possibility piled on another, and no one can predict the future. I think the costs/benefits of Brexit is what the 2022 election will all be about, rather than this one. Having said which, Labour isn't interested in pursuing this subject very much, and the Conservatives have a policy of not talking about it either, for different reasons. The Lib Dems haven't focused their message on costs either, come to that.

The wider point about costing a manifesto is a very good one too. Basically, a manifesto needs to be costed if voters need convincing that the manifesto is economically credible. That's always a problem for Labour because they tend not to be given the benefit of the doubt on economic competence in the way that the Conservatives are. Ken Clarke said today that he didn't think manifestos should be costed, which is fine if you are a Tory but not so easy if you are Labour. And anyway, no one can foretell the future outturn of the economy. My heart's with Clarke on this, but my head says Labour has to do decent costings. I suppose if you are Franklin Roosevelt you can get away with saying "This is our plan, and if it doesn't work we'll try something else, and you know you can trust us to get it right in the end. Unfortunately there aren't many political leaders with that kind of confidence inspiring momentum.

Yes, that is an intriguing detail. The chief outcome, as far as I can tell, is the restoration of a very powerful tool to the PM. Cameron agreed to surrender control of the election timetable (i.e. licence to dissolve, via the Royal Prerogative) only because the Lib Dems were afraid that he would suddenly pull the rug on coalition and grab a majority. As it turned out he got one after 5 years anyway ...

But the restoration of flexible parliaments will change the dynamic for the opposition as well. The prospect of a fixed 5 year stint stretching out ahead is psychologically traumatic for the losing side in a general election. It makes life very hard for the opposition leader who has to think strategically about how to build towards a campaign the date of which is set so far in advance.

One very geeky constitutional point: no-one knows for sure what happens to a royal prerogative that has been scrapped when the law that scrapped it is repealed. Does it just ping back into place, as if by magic, or do you need legislation to put it back? It would be a very weird thing for MPs to do in the 21st Century, to pass a law actively giving the monarch a power to dissolve parliament. But the alternative is making it explicit that it is really the PM's power - and that would look even worse. It would be a massive constitutional shift to No10 ..

'To call it a 'death tax' is incorrect'

May’s manifesto addresses the care issue by unlocking mountains of capital tied up in house values. Is this necessarily a bad thing just because its comes from Theresa May?

And Lynda Duffy adds:

The Manifesto may not be “populist” but raising the threshold to £100k, thereby preserving a reasonable estate to be passed on and asking people who can, to contribute to any care costs is, in my opinion, a sound and honest attempt to level the financial playing field.

No one will have to leave their home in their lifetime. To call it a “death tax” is not only thoroughly objectionable but incorrect. There are many older people who are sitting on large amounts of unused equity in their property’s who do not need welfare payments such as heating allowance, those that do will be better provided for if it was means tested.

On the “death tax” social care question – I heartily agree. Theresa May is quite right to take the money from the unearned wealth the older generation - myself included - have acquired through no effort or talent via absurd and dangerous house price booms. I wrote about this in response to the Tory manifesto here.

They are quite wrong to cut inheritance tax – though this is a back door way of restoring some of that error. But how the social care costs are spread fairly between those with high costs and those with none is something she should consider again. But Lynda, when it comes to the NHS, which you also say in part of your email “cannot be expected to provide all and sundry, people have to be educated to take more responsibility for their own physical and mental health” – once you start to unpick the universal free service, it will fall apart, never to be regained. Those who fail to look after themselves are often poorer, sicker, and have mental health problems. Once you try to decide whether this reckless young motorcyclist, that crazy pot-holer, that food-addicted obesity patient, or heroin addict don’t deserve free treatment because they brought misfortune on themselves, which of us would escape blame for something or other? Some are born with strong characters, others not so much. Don’t go there!

Polly is also reading your comments. A reader known (below the line, at least) as hubbahubba asks:

Is May’s risk of alienating the true blue Tories to try and garner disillusioned Labour voters a risk worth taking?

I don’t think she takes any risk at all! Risk is not in her nature. The right has nowhere else to go, UKIP has collapsed, eaten up by her hard Brexiting. My fear is the opposite: she will be driven by all those hard Brexiters, instead of striking the best available deal.

'Could we have an intelligent, empathetic and thoughtful leader?'

Polly Toynbee

Here’s another question from a reader received via email:

Do you think it’s possible that all these people lauding “strong” leadership might be reminded that strong leaders have caused as much havoc in the past as weak leaders? Could we have an intelligent, empathetic and thoughtful leader now we’ve taken the catastrophic Brexit decision?I agree! There is something repellent about all this strong and stable leadership obsession. But sadly, since opinion polls began, voters look for their idea of “strength” or at least for the “strongest” on offer at election time. I fear greatly that this “strong” leader is just adamant, obstinate, inflexible, and rigid when what these fiendish Brexit negotiations will need is warmth, empathy, agility, cunning, flexibility, charm and persuasiveness. May has none of that. Bull-dozing is not way to go.

Before we got a chance to pore over the details of the Conservative manifesto, we offered readers who leaned towards voting Tory to tell us what policies they’d have liked to see. You can see how they matched up to the reality Theresa May promises here.